Taoism - a problem of definition

Chinese religion and spirituality has been divided, by both the
Chinese and foreign scholars alike, into three great streams: Confucianism,
Buddhism, and Taoism. In the spirit of Asiatic syncretism, these three
teachings were often con-sidered complementary rather than contradictory,
Confucianism being concerned with how one should act in the human world,
and Buddhism and Taoism with the spiritual and world-transcending path;
and Chinese writers would frequently speak of the "three sages": Confucius,
Lao-tze, and Buddha. (A similiar approach was taken in India, regarding
the reconcilia-tion of the six classical systems of philosophy - the "six
darshanas" - which were codified around the time of Christ). But quite
apart from the arbitrary nature of such a conciliation, we are faced with
the fact that whereas Confucianism and Buddhism could each be considered
self-contained religions, Taoism was little more than a "catch-all" category
with which to include anything that did not fit within the other two religions:
from the sublime philisophico-spiritual teachings of Lao-tze and Chuang-tze
(both fourth century B.C.E.) to the magical-occult folk beliefs of the
village shaman.

Some Western scholars tried to make sense of Taoism by distinguishing
between "philosophical" Taoism (by which is meant the tradition of Lao-tze
and Chuang-tze) and "religious" Taoism. Such terms are rather inappropriate.
Lao-tze and Chuan-tze's Taoism is hardly "philosophical", but rather "spiritual"
in the sense that sophisticated - as op-posed to "popular" or "village"
- Buddhism and "Hinduism" are. And "religious" Taoism can itself be divided
into many categories, such as Village/Shamanic on the one hand, and Yogic/alchemical/self-transformative on the other.